Israel is not traumatized while committing such actions; but is traumatized while watching them!

‘I am Anna Baltzer.My first reaction when I heard these things by the way was complete disbelief.
I thought there is no way, there is no way that Israel is anything different from what I believe it to be, and what I know it to be.
When I met people who told me anything different, I thought well these are perfectly nice people, but they have been brain washed. They have been told propaganda. And I set out to sort of try and prove them wrong. To show them that I knew what I was talking about.
And as soon as I began to do some research, I realized very quickly that I was the one who is missing a lot of information on this issue.
And not knowing sort of who to believe anymore, decided to go there and see with my own two eyes what was happening in Palestine.
So that’s what I travel around the country telling people about is what I found there.
I hope I can offer people a combination of sort of some of the basics of what’s going on there, and then also some ways of going a little bit deeper into the history, and most importantly, where we can go from here.
I like like to start out by clarifying a few different categories that can be very confusing to people in addressing this issue.I’d like to distinguish between what it means to be Jewish: so I am Jewish what does that mean. Somebody who is Jewish is somebody either of the Jewish religion, obviously, or the Jewish lineage. My mother is Jewish, her mother is Jewish, etceteras. It’s a bloodline.And that to be Jewish is different from what it means to be Israeli: an Israeli is a citizenship, and Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel.And that to be Israeli is different from what it means to be a Zionist: Zionism is the political ideology that supports the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, sometimes no matter what that means in reality, and no matter what it does.Anyway, these are different categories, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist.And sometimes they overlap in the same person, but they are not the same thing.
There are Jews who are not Israeli, like myself.
There are Israelis who aren’t Jewish, about 25, about 20 percent of the Israeli population is Palestinian.
There are Jews who are anti-Zionist, who say this land should be for anybody who’s been living there for generations regardless of what their religion or their ethnicity is.
And then there are Zionists who aren’t Jewish. The increasingly influential Christian Zionist movement, largely based in this country that talks about fueling this conflict to bring about the Armageddon, the return of the Messiah. Again, not at all pro-Jewish, right? You know what happens to Jews in the Armageddon is not about preserving Judeism, it is Zionism.
So we see this distinction and it’s very important that we see that distinction and that we express it when we are talking about this issue.First of all, because there is no reason to associate anything that Israel is doing in terms of occupation, oppression, segregation, things that were pretty sobering that I found when I was over there. These things have nothing to do with Judeism.
And likewise, to speak out when we see people’s rights being violated is not anti-Jewish.
It’s not anti-Semitic. In fact, it’s in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people as well as many other communities for a very long time.
So I wanna start out with that, especially because I know that people talking about this issue are often, sort of, these names are called at you, and it’s absolutely absurd.There is nothing Jewish about what Israel’s doing, nothing anti-Jewish about speaking out when we see it happening.‘ — Transcription by Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

“Somehow, the victim screaming in pain is considered biased, but their victimizers’ description of their victims’ plight is academic honesty and intellectual brilliance! … When we give higher currency to conscionable dissent makers whose prime cultural affiliations are with the victim makers themselves, over those voices of anguish of the victims, we do both the victims and other well intentioned bystanders longing to figure out how to make peace with justice, a great disservice! … The voices of the victims themselves describing their own fate are as potent, and as legitimate, as the Jewish moralist and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s description of what the Jewish victims faced at the hands of another monumentally criminal oppressors. Just as the victims’ own description of their Holocaust outweighs any detractors and revisionist historians claims to the contrary – indeed even laws are being constructed in many Western nations to make it illegal to challenge the victims stories and the victims suffering and the victims version of what calamity befell them – so must the systematic genocide and depopulation, terrorizing, and inhuman subjugation of an innocent peoples in their own words must now replace the many Diaries of Anne Frank.” —The endless trail of red herrings

The odd moral-infighting aside that is: “A prominent rabbi of the Iranian Jewish community has urged his congregation to burn ‘The King’s Torah’, a controversial book, which supports the murder of non-Jews. The Iranian rabbi, however, said on Monday that the book’s message, in fact, directly contradicted the teachings of Moses. Rabbi Golestaninejad said the book was not based on the tenets of the Jewish faith.”

And the troubled goy’s unsurpassed eloquence aside that is, which sees only one devil amidst thunderous applause from its own flock: “Jewry is the international albatross now hung around the neck of the world. What glorious destiny might have been ours without it. What we might have earned, what we might have discovered, what we might have accomplished without its enervating and meddling weight.”?

From Left-wing Reform Judeism of Moses Hess in 1828, to Right-wing Antediluvian Judeism of Rabbi Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira in 2009 – is one continuous synthesis in every generation to suit any genius in the flock to be returned to the Promised Land.

By Hook or by Crook!

Like the WWF wrestlers hurling mortal philosophy at each other in the pig-pen to attract the mesmerized crowd, while all the time sipping at the same trough outside the shit-hole, it is fed from the same coffers.

As with the secret of Samson’s indomitable strength, this golem’s (almost hidden) source of power lies deceptively elsewhere!

And that is the real Samson Option!

Want to get rid of the golem? You gonna have to pay in spades. This takes more than just writing scholarly books and conducting research into who’s right and who’s wrong. It takes more than just exercising one’s enormous lung-power in weekend protest marches on catchy slogans which automatically get incremented each Nakba commemoration: “Our DATE is 60 years LATE, we shall return.” Instead of the voluminous lung-capacity, it’s going to take unemotional brain-capacity – both “Mens et Manus” – to engineer the neutering of the golem, beginning rightly with one’s own House of Negroe first. That’s the only effective Way Forward:

And visit From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine to witness what happens when Anna Baltzer’s categories, Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist, overlap in the same person – when it’s calculatingly combined in one ‘ubermensch’ entity – while you remain silent.

Watch carefully one’s own future-history unravel in the mirror of the poor canary of Palestine.

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.

051520101200381847

From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish! Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Behavior Control

Edward
Bernays On The Public Mind:

“We
are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Aldous
Huxley On The Public Mind:

“we
are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will
enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and
presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their
servitude!”

Bertrand
Russell On The Public Mind:

“What
a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his
desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If
a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or
worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times
even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he
will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.”

Adolf
Hitler On The Public Mind:

“Not
infrequently it is a case of overcoming ingrained prejudices which
are mostly unconscious and are supported by sentiment rather than
reason.

It
is a thousand times more difficult to overcome this barrier of
instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventive dissent than to
correct opinions which are founded on defective or erroneous
knowledge.

False
ideas and ignorance may be set aside by means of instruction, but
emotional resistance never can.”

“One
must also remember that of itself the multitude is mentally inert,
that it remains attached to its old habits and that it is not
naturally prone to read something which does not conform with its own
pre-established beliefs when such writing does not contain what the
multitude hopes to find there.

Therefore,
some piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for the most
part read only by those who are in sympathy with it.”

“The
deluge of papers and books published by the intellectual circles year
after year passed over the millions of the lower social strata like
water over glazed leather.”

“The
great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and
outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather
than by sober reasoning.

This
sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is
not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive
notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its
notions are never partly this and partly that.

English
propaganda [during World War I] especially understood this in a
marvellous way and put what they understood into practice.

They
allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt.

Proof
of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is
something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of
horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the
time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral
solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats.

Further,
the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely
responsible for the war--which was a brutal and absolute
falsehood--and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was
excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are
always extremist in their feelings.

And
thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed.”

“Generally,
readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:

First,
those who believe everything they read;

Second,
those who no longer believe anything;

Third,
those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments
accordingly.

Numerically,
the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad
masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion
of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation but
only into grades of intelligence.

Under
this category come all those who have not been born to think for
themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly through
incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything that is
set before them in print.

To
these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable
of thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs
everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to
have been thoroughly done.

The
influence which the Press has on all these people is therefore
enormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation.
But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally
to sift what is being served up to them; so that their whole attitude
towards daily problems is almost solely the result of extraneous
influence.

The
second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those
who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter
disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see
in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at
all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which
they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements.

These
people are difficult to handle; for they will always be sceptical of
the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive
work.

The
third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real
intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to
think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own
judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.

They
will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to
collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set
writers an easy task.

Journalists
appreciate this type of reader only with a certain amount of
reservation.

Hence
the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little
danger--much less of importance--to the members of the third group of
readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard
every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the
truth.

Most
unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence
and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a
period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything.

Nowadays
when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the
decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that
is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”

“Particular
attention should be paid to the Press; for its influence on these
people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all; since its
effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance lies
in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching.

Here,
if anywhere, the State should never forget that all means should
converge towards the same end.

It
must not be led astray by the will-o'-the-wisp of so-called 'freedom
of the Press', or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding
from the nation that which is good and which does good.

With
ruthless determination the State must keep control of this instrument
of popular education and place it at the service of the State and the
Nation.”

“No
matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of
propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of
these fundamental principles.

Propaganda must be limited to a few
simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as
in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most
important condition of success.”

AND:
This is How the Mighty
Wurlitzer
does all of that to construct the Fourth Reich:

“We
are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the
responsibility for our future.” --- George Bernard Shaw